Originally posted by inimalist
god, you are going to love the remarks about "executive discression" at the end then 🙂the state could charge the media with espionage, its just a nice guy
I think that's just the executive branch trying to puff itself up. We heard earlier on that trying to prosecute civilians for espionage in the US is nearly impossible. It would just be pointless harassment.
Shell, the oil company, spies on the Nigerian government:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-shell-nigeria-spying
The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.The company's top executive in Nigeria told US diplomats that Shell had seconded employees to every relevant department and so knew "everything that was being done in those ministries". She boasted that the Nigerian government had "forgotten" about the extent of Shell's infiltration and was unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations.
The cache of secret dispatches from Washington's embassies in Africa also revealed that the Anglo-Dutch oil firm swapped intelligence with the US, in one case providing US diplomats with the names of Nigerian politicians it suspected of supporting militant activity, and requesting information from the US on whether the militants had acquired anti-aircraft missiles.
Originally posted by inimalist
no, I agreeI sort of did a double take when they said that, it sort of reminded me of what you were saying, the government just totally setting aside one of the principle ideas of America, the free press, just to try and seem powerful.
Hadn't thought of it that way. I mean "we could take down the New York Times if we wanted to" just screams Internet Though Guy to me. It's almost too funny to take seriously (knowing that precedent says they'd fail makes it easier to laugh).
But, yeah, that the executive would even suggest something like that is annoying.
However burning political capital to defend practices and attitudes that aren't any good seems like a more serious problem because it's an admission that not only is State Department is tolerant of that sort of stuff but wants to keep doing it. I think that betrays the belief that it will always be the world's superpower and can act how it wants with minor concern about how other countries react. Right now that could be more damaging than ever since the country is in a position where it could lose that status (or get real competition for the first time in decades).
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hadn't thought of it that way. I mean "we could take down the New York Times if we wanted to" just screams Internet Though Guy to me. It's almost too funny to take seriously (knowing that precedent says they'd fail makes it easier to laugh).
thats why I thought it was such a jaw dropper. It was so clearly wrong, not only in terms of fact but in terms of what America stands for, that it was bewildering to hear they said that.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
However burning political capital to defend practices and attitudes that aren't any good seems like a more serious problem because it's an admission that not only is State Department is tolerant of that sort of stuff but wants to keep doing it. I think that betrays the belief that it will always be the world's superpower and can act how it wants with minor concern about how other countries react. Right now that could be more damaging than ever since the country is in a position where it could lose that status (or get real competition for the first time in decades).
true, it may be more serious, its just, that sort of "America owns the world" attitude, or that they are above and immune to any criticism, isn't as surprising to me.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/operation-payback-attacks-visa/
interesting perspective on Visa refusing to process donations to Wikileaks, most notably at the end:
Visa should not get involved by politics and just simply do their business where they are good at. Transferring money. They have no problem transferring money for other businesses such as gambling sites, pornography services and the like so why a donation to a Web site which is holding up for human rights should be morally any worse than that is outside of my understanding
Originally posted by inimalist
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/operation-payback-attacks-visa/interesting perspective on Visa refusing to process donations to Wikileaks, most notably at the end:
Gambling and porn are legal. A typically muddle-headed argument.
The leaks are stolen property essentially, and their acqusition inevitably involves illegal means. Suspensions of payment services have been on grounds either of a. incorrect registration or b. suspicion of payment going towards illegal activities.
If you wanted to clock credit card companies for supporting, say, the illegal arms trade (which has come up before) then at least the argument would make sense.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The leaks are stolen property essentially, and their acqusition inevitably involves illegal means. Suspensions of payment services have been on grounds either of a. incorrect registration or b. suspicion of payment going towards illegal activities.If you wanted to clock credit card companies for supporting, say, the illegal arms trade (which has come up before) then at least the argument would make sense.
Not really, a lot was sniffed at Tor exit nodes. I would argue that clear text packets leave a public server can't really be stolen.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The leaks are stolen property essentially, and their acqusition inevitably involves illegal means. Suspensions of payment services have been on grounds either of a. incorrect registration or b. suspicion of payment going towards illegal activities.If you wanted to clock credit card companies for supporting, say, the illegal arms trade (which has come up before) then at least the argument would make sense.
lol, well, I'm going to take the opinions of the legal experts over yours, if that's ok
Gambling and porn arent legal everywhere and a lot of people from areas where they are illegal pay for them online with credit cards. The companies don't do shit about it.
They did it to wikileaks because of political pressure. The half-assed excuses they use to justify it in legal grounds as if they would have behaved in the same way if the subject wasnt this hot are just that, excuses.
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, well, I'm going to take the opinions of the legal experts over yours, if that's ok
And you will find that their legal experts say the activities are illegal. 'Lol' all you like; that was a contemptible response from you.
And 753, there you are just shit-stirring; one unbacked accusation and then one random attack just wanting to interpret things the way that suits your agenda.
Muddle-headed thinking is very common in situations such as these.
You know what pisses me off the most about this bullshit american argument that diplomacy needs privacy to work and that wikileaks is ruining american diplomatic efforts? The us was ordering their diplomats to spy on the UN and its personell for them. So I guess the UN that does most of the actual humanitarian work in the planet and is actually commited to global peace doesn't need privacy to operate. It's ok to lift their passwords, phone calls, credit card numbers and transactions. It's okay to get their fingerprints, iris patterns and blood types to do god knows what with it, as it can only serve to impersonate them in biometric security scans. It is blatant that this info was collected so it can allow efficient interference with and manipulation of UN work when it suits the american SD's interests.
So **** this supposedly righteous outrage.
Feel free to take part in a movement to bring prosecutions against involved US officials, if you feel they have broken the law as well. For all the good that will do you.
The fact remains that the reason given for suspending payments have been on grounds of legality, NOT morality, so bringing comparisons to the likes of porn and gambling is a total red herring. That you support Wikileaks does not prevent that being illogical thinking.